Ishmael places God at the pinnacle of the hierarchy of crew and terrors that they face—”what are the comprehensible terrors of man compared with the interlinked terrors and wonders of God!” he exclaims. [Chapter XXIV]

Of true courage, he declares that one who is fearless of terrors, whether of nature or of the supernatural, is no different than a coward: “the most reliable and useful courage [is] that which arises from the fair estimation of the encountered peril . . . an utterly fearless man is a far more dangerous comrade than a coward.” [Chapter XXVI]

On the equality of dignity, Ishmael states: “Thou shall see it shining in the arm that wields a pick or drives a spike; that democratic dignity which, on all hands, radiates without end from God, Himself! The great God absolute! The centre and circumference of all democracy! His omnipresence, our divine equality!” What powerful words from Melville! The crew, even though separated by hierarchy of duties is equal in the eyes of God. [Chapter XXVI]

Ishmael expands that even those perceived as inferior or even imbecilic at times rise above intellectuals: “be a man’s intellectual superiority what it will, it can never assume the practical, available supremacy over other men . . . those men who become famous more through their infinite inferiority to the choice hidden handful of the Divine Inert, than through their undoubted superiority over the dead level of the mass . . . in some royal instances even to idiot imbecility they have imparted potency.” Again, what powerful words! [Chapter XXXIII]

Ishmael once more peers upward to beautifully describe those who man the mast-heads: “to a dreamy meditative man it is delightful. There you stand, a hundred feet above the silent decks, string along the deep, as if the masts were gigantic stilts, while beneath you and between your legs, as it were, swim the hugest monsters of the sea, even as ships once sailed between the boots of the famous Colossus at old Rhodes. There you stand, lost in the infinite series of the sea, with nothing ruffled but the waves. The tranced ship indolently rolls; the drowsy trade winds blow; everything resolves you into languor . . . a sublime uneventfulness invests you; you hear no news; read no gazettes; extras with startling accounts of commonplaces never delude you into unnecessary excitements; you hear of no domestic afflictions; bankrupt securities; fall of stocks; are never troubled with the thought of what you shall have for dinner—for all your meals for three years and more are snugly stowed in casks, and your bill of fare is immutable . . . as the soul is glued inside of its fleshly tabernacle, and cannot freely move about in it, nor even more out of it, without running great risk of perishing . . . so a watch-coat is not so much of a house as it is a mere envelope, or additional skin encasing you.” [Chapter XXXV]

Melville creates vivid pictures of this floating-island democracy of men, tossed about on his “mystic ocean” that surrounds them and keeps them on the watch at all times.

Two years ago, I turned sixty, and I reflected on Shakespeare’s “Seven Ages of Man,” from As You Like It, Act II, Scene VII: “And then the justice, / In fair round belly with good capon lined, / With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, / Full of wise saws and modern instances; / And so he plays his part.” I noted in my journal that I, for the first time, felt that it was as if I had become my father.

Melville, in chapter VIII of Moby-Dick, writes of Father Mapple: “Father Mapple was in the hardy winter of a healthy old age; that sort of old age which seems merging into a second flowering youth, for among all the fissures of his wrinkles, there shone certain mild gleams of a newly developing bloom—the spring verdure peeping forth even beneath February’s snow.

I can honestly relate to both passages. I feel, though not as a preacher, that I have entered a new spring of my life. Somewhat amusingly, I even have a “round belly” and “beard of formal cut.”

When one turns sixty, it’s time to think about spiritual things. Melville writes in Chapter VII: “Methinks we have hugely mistaken this matter of Life and Death. Methinks that what they call my shadow here on earth is my true substance. Methinks that in looking at things spiritual, we are too much like oysters observing the sun through the water, and thinking that thick water the thinnest of air. Methinks my body is but the less of my better being. In fact take my body who will, take it I say, it is not me.”

“It is not me”! Then who is Ishmael? He says: “my shadow here on earth is my true substance.” Is he speaking of a “soul?” I believe he is, or he and the other whalers would not be bothered with Father Mapple’s church and sermons.

Melville writes in chapter VIII: “to the faithful man of God,this pulpit, I see, is a self-containing stronghold . . . with a perennial well of water within the walls. . . the pulpit is ever this earth’s foremost part;all the rest comes in its rear; the pulpit leads the world. From thence it is the storm of God’s quick wrath is first descried, and the bow must bear the earliest brunt. From thence it is the God of breezes fair or foul is first invoked for favorable winds. Yes, the world’s a ship on its passage out, and not a voyage complete; and the pulpit is its prow.”

Now in my sixties, I consider myself a faithful man. I and my wife attend weekly services, and I serve as a reader, standing at the lectern and proclaiming the Word of God to the parishioners. I think Ishmael and Father Mapple’s congregation take the sermons from the pulpit, and especially the Word of God, with them onto the unpredictable water and into the smell of the great whales—and possible death.

Tom Wolfe: The Faith of John Glenn

The first American to orbit the Earth brought his religiosity to the U.S. space program—and that made many astronauts bristle

NASA introduces its original seven Mercury astronauts at a news conference, Washington, D.C., April 9, 1959. Marine Lt. Col. John Glenn is fifth from the left. Photo: Bettmann Archive/Getty Images

By

Tom Wolfe

Updated Dec. 9, 2016 6:10 p.m. ET

Ready or not, it took how long—20 minutes, maybe?— on Day One, April 9, 1959, for John Glenn to become the role model for every American astronaut of the 20th century. The problem was, most of them hated the role.

The scene is a press conference convened in the new NASA headquarters in Washington to introduce the first seven astronauts chosen for the U.S. space program. A mass of reporters and photographers are writhing like weevils among one another to get better angles on the seven men at a table onstage—including, in the middle, Glenn, who died Thursday in Columbus, Ohio, at the age of 95.

With that, the press rise to their feet like a single ecstatic animal. They cheer, scream, clap, shout and weep sublime tears…The press…the press…would they ever stop?

That was the first indication that even the media was succumbing to the single-combat mania that seemed to have died out many centuries ago. In single combat, two armies confront each other in the battlefield. But before the all-out battle, each sends out a champion…and the two fight to the death to find out whose side the gods are on. The most famous tale of single combat is the Old Testament story of David and Goliath. Little David, the Israelite, slays Goliath, the giant Philistine with a slingshot, and cuts his head off. The Philistines are so demoralized that they flee, and the Israelites decimate them.

At the time, no one realized that the space race was single combat revived in a slightly, but only slightly, new form. The American astronauts and the Russian cosmonauts vied with one another for the conquest of space, as it was thought to be. There was no earthly reason why the conquest of space, so-called, would have any direct effect upon the conquest of Earth, but there was no one old enough to remember that single combat was never constrained by logic.

Once the giddy noise dies down, the first reporter to raise his hand wants to know from each of the seven whether or not his wife and children “had anything to say about this.” The boys begin answering in typical military-officer fashion. The idea is to answer personal questions as remotely and briefly and in as moribund a deadpan as possible. That they proceed to do…until it’s John Glenn’s turn.

The others can’t believe it. The man’s ready with a discourse on the subject, complete with sincerity-steeped rhetorical inflections.

“I don’t think any of us could really go on with something like this if we didn’t have pretty good backing at home, really,” Glenn says. “My wife’s attitude toward this has been the same as it has been all along through all my flying. If it is what I want to do, she is behind it, and the kids are too, a hundred percent.”

What the hell is he talking about? I don’t think any of us could really go on with something like this… Schirra leans into his mike and says, “My wife has agreed that professional opinions are mine, career is mine.” What possible difference could a wife’s attitude make about an opportunity this big? What was with this guy?

It keeps on in that fashion. Some reporter gets up and asks them all about their religious affiliations (religious affiliations?)—and Glenn tees off again.

“I am a Presbyterian,” he says, “a Protestant Presbyterian, and I take my religion very seriously, as a matter of fact.” He starts telling them about all the Sunday schools he has taught at and the church boards he has served on and all the church work that he and his wife and his children have done. “I was brought up believing that you are placed on Earth here more or less with sort of a 50-50 proposition, and this is what I still believe. We are placed here with certain talents and capabilities. It is up to each of us to use those talents and capabilities as best you can. If you do that, I think there is a power greater than any of us that will place the opportunities in our way, and if we use our talents properly, we will be living the kind of life we should live.”

A power greater than any of us! From the lips of a flying jock! The others do their best to locate some piety and stay in the game. Gus Grissom says, “I consider myself religious. I am a Protestant and belong to the Church of Christ. I am not real active in church, as Mr. Glenn is”—Mister Glenn—“but I consider myself a good Christian still.” Deke Slayton says, “As far as my religious faith is concerned, I am a Lutheran, and I go to church periodically.” Alan Shepard says, “I am not a member of any church. I attend the Christian Science Church regularly.” He doesn’t feel compelled to mention that when he went to church, it was because his wife was an ardent member. It was hard slogging, but Glenn had given them no choice. The wise thing was to imply somehow that you had piety to burn.

Glenn never gave up. He kept the pressure on. In his speech to Congress after the historic flight that made him the first American to orbit the Earth, he said some things that nobody else in the world could have gotten away with, even in 1962. He said, “I still get a lump in my throat when I see the American flag passing by.”

Yet for all of this, I never see mention of Glenn’s importance in the religious history of the United States. In the late 19th century, Nietzsche uttered his famous dictum “God is dead,” referring to the decline of Christianity among educated, well-to-do people in Europe, and the death throes had spread to America after World War I. Here, religion limped osteoporotically through the rest of the century, but America remains the most religious country outside of the nations of Islam. Glenn’s religiosity, amplified by the tremendous, Zeus-like success of the space program—which became his voice—may have slowed down the grim slide. Where it will all come out, of course, God only knows.

BillyGraham.org

Answers

Q:

What do angels look like?

Do they look like the pictures we see on Christmas cards?

Or are they even real?

I’ve always been curious about this.

A:

Yes, angels are real—just as real as you and I are. Although they are largely unseen by us, they exist in great numbers. The Bible speaks of “thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly” (Hebrews 12:22). When Jesus’ birth was announced to the shepherds outside Bethlehem, “a great company of the heavenly host appeared … praising God” (Luke 2:13).

Unlike us, however, angels are spiritual beings—that is, in their normal state they don’t have physical bodies. However, on occasion they can appear as ordinary humans, or even as glorious celestial beings that reflect the majesty of God. When God gave the prophet Isaiah a vision of His glory, His throne was surrounded by angels of great splendor and power: “At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook” (Isaiah 6:4).

God created the angels for one purpose: to serve Him. As such they work in hidden ways to carry out God’s will and protect God’s people. Even when we are unaware of them, they are still part of our lives. They also are part of a great unseen army that constantly fights against Satan and his servants of evil. God’s promise should bring comfort to every believer: “He will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways” (Psalm 91:11).

We aren’t to worship the angels; God alone is worthy of our worship. But we can thank God for them—and some day in Heaven we’ll realize just how much they’ve done for us, at God’s command. “Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?” (Hebrews 1:14).

Atheist Richard Dawkins Reveals the Best Argument He’s Ever Heard for God’s Existence: ‘It’s the Best One Going’

Famed atheist Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist who is known for vocally deriding religion, recently revealed the best argument that he’s ever heard for God’s existence.

During a visit late last year to Google’s offices in Kirkland, Washington, Dawkins discussed his memoir, “Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science,” and shared his views on issues such as the existence of God and the theory of evolution.

“There is no decent rebuttal of evolution,” Dawkins said. “And there is no decent argument in favor of the existence of deities.”

Professor Richard Dawkins, ethologist, evolutionary biologist and author of books including The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene, is seen at Random House, London, on Wednesday, August 14th,2013. (Fiona Hanson/AP)

But he still presented the best available argument that he’s heard for the existence of the Almighty, which he said centers on a “deistic God, who had something to do with the fine tuning of the universe,” according to the Christian Post.

“It’s still a very, very bad argument, but it’s the best one going,” Dawkins continued.

Deism is a system in which people essentially believe that God created the world and then subsequently declines to intervene in its affairs.

The definition of the system, according to Merriam-Webster, is as follows: “a movement or system of thought advocating natural religion, emphasizing morality, and in the 18th century denying the interference of the Creator with the laws of the universe.”

As for the best argument that he has heard against evolution, Dawkins declined to share one, as he believes that people are simply confused over the issue and struggle with some of the surrounding details.

“There are reasons why people don’t get it, such as the time scale involved is so huge,” he said. “People find it difficult to grasp how long a time has been available for the changes that are talked about.”

Despite being recorded back in October, the interview wasn’t uploaded to the Talks at Google YouTube page until Jan. 11.

GREETINGS to my brother, Michael, who believes that he has circumvented me on his new worlds:

No doubt you heard my laughter when I read your letter. Do not be complacent. Damon and Lilith will make their appearances on Pandara in due course, if not to this generation there, then to their sons and daughters. For though this generation may tell their children of what they know, and of what they have seen, and what they have learned, it is in the nature of men to say, “Our parents love legends and tales and strangenesses, but we have not seen the Archangel Michael with our own eyes, nor have wondered at his countenance. Our parents tell us that it was the will of God that he appeared only to our forefathers, but not to us, and that is most peculiar, indeed, for are we not more sophisticated than our fathers, and our daughters more knowledgeable than their mothers? Do we not dwell in cities, whereas they dwelt in the fields and the forests? Have we not learning and understanding, greater than our forebears? Do we not have magnificent temples of wisdom, and do we not stream through the heavens like birds and through the waters like fish, and is there aught we do not know of this world of ours, or are there wonders as yet undiscovered? Are we, then, not wise and therefore more worthy to gaze upon this Archangel Michael, and would we not apprehend his words with more clarity and more subtlety? Why this coyness, that he hides from us–if he exists at all? It is folly. There is no such an archangel, and therefore what our parents have told us has no verity.”

You have heard thoughts like these on innumerable planets, among the worldly children of men who believe they have conquered all things and are capable of comprehending everything. That is my opportunity. For though the generations of Pandara may not yet have fallen, pride in their accomplishments will spur that fall, and pride in their own will will assure their destruction. I will not only send them Damon and Lilith, and say to them, “Do not deny your natural appetites, for all appetite is good, for is it not your nature?” but I will say, “Your parents were simple and mere children in their souls, and had no real will of their own for they were enamored of a fantasy. Have you not failed to discern the reality of Michael in your scientific instruments, and have you found God, of whom your parents speak, in the watches of the night or in your affairs? If there is an angel at all, it is in your capacities, and if there is a God, you are that god, and you must deify yourselves for naught exists in those gigantic universes you catch in your mirrors but your own being. You are the center, the heart, of all mindless creation, and only you have sentience. If you doubt me, show me the proof to the contrary.”

That is an argument few men have ever disputed, for the proofs of your existence, and the Existence of Our Father, lie not in the grosser matter but in the towers of the soul. But they will know that I exist! For I will give them delights and conceits and arrogances, and the ecstasy of defying the laws of their fathers, which were the Laws God gave to them. Nothing so exalts a man as rebellion, as we have remarked before, and nothing increases his vanity so much as coming to a wrong conclusion, which he believes is correct. Assure a man that he is wise and knows all things, and that only he exists, and there is no end to his exultant rapture. Even when the men of Pandara become so suddenly aware of the fact that in some strange way death and disease and age and loss have come among them–when once they were absent–they will say, “But this is the inevitable course of nature, and was to be expected! There is a time for living and a time for dying, and always it was so, though we have not known it before.” You will understand that men have explanations for everything, and the more absurd the more they are accepted. When they discover that the incorruptible has put on corruptibility, the immaculate has become stained, the eternal has become mortal, they will nod their heads solemnly and say, “It is natural–we just had not lived long enough, but time is inexorable. Let us, then, devote our lives to the search for happiness and for personal fulfillment, and not dream as our forebears dreamt, but be courageous men who live that we may die and strive while we can.”

They will see my face in their own and will adore me, for am I not the reverie of men, even those not yet fallen?

Why do men prefer to believe there is no God? Is there a fatal flaw even in the unfallen, as it was in me and my angels? You will say that there is, indeed, that “flaw” and you will repeat that it is free will. Nonetheless, men prefer to believe there is no God. God restrains and all chaff at virtue and constraint and the necessity to obey and love. . . . Once God is removed from the belief of men, then they can truly live as they believe the gods live: Enjoying existence, relieved of duty and responsibility, delighting in each hour, acquiring their miserable riches as they will, disobeying even good laws, exulting in violence and bloodshed, exercising power over their fellows–and always for their fellows’ own good, you will observe–and committing all vileness in the serene conviction that there is no good and no evil, but only a man’s desire and a man’s needs. Above all, there is no accounting, for the One who accounts does not exist. So man, they will conclude, is truly free to “live according to his innate nature.” All their wars will be holy, all their excesses but an exaggeration of good, all their errors correctable through new laws which they will profusely pass, and all their hatreds righteous. But still there is the inborn, the endowed, craving for perfection, and they will say that man is perfectable.

So they will strive for perfection, which is beyond their earning, and they will seek for merit among the applause of men like themselves, rather than in the smiles of God. They will chase up the mountains of their lives for perfectability, and always there will be the descent on the torrid opposite side, but again they will climb with their banners and their slogans, and always they will fall. They cannot resist the desire for true perfection with which God sadly endowed them–and He cannot withdraw His gift, but they will distort it and in seeking they will never find.

Despair will sit at their right hand and death will dine with them, and decay and grief will be their bed, and sorrow their song, and all that which their darkened souls desired with a hunger that comes from God will never be their own.

And they will descend to me, and will ask again that disgusting question, “If you exist, then God must exist also?” And I will reply as ever, “It does not follow. I am the god you made, and you are mine.”

Will the Sacrifice on Terra save these men also? You continually refuse to answer that question, but my curiosity grows with the refusal. In the meantime my hells fatten with the hosts of the damned–who willed their own damnation.

I do not know why I hover so often over Terra, where the immortal Crime was committed–and to what purpose? I watch my legions of demons at work, and I smile at their industry. They hope by pleasing me that I will grant them death and oblivion. You will see that they have much more faith in me than they ever had in God.

Terra is doomed. I watch the progress to annihilation with the only pleasure of which I am capable. Then the memory of the Sacrifice will be obliterated, and there will be no remembrance at all in men, not even of the myth which they declare it is. I will be vindicated, even before His Eyes. He will be forced to admit that I was right and He was wrong. In His second death on Terra the first will be lost, and all men will be mine, even to the farthest planet.

There will be the peace of nothingness, thereafter, and is that not to be desired?

Your brother, Lucifer

NOTE: The full text of Caldwell’s Dialogues With The Devil is 198 pages and can be found relatively easy through Amazon.com, a library or through abebooks.com. I will continue to abridge and serialize the remaining chapters as I find the time.

We are excessively pleased that you have informed us that you will send Damon to Pandara, to seduce her six women. . . .

. . . we have taken precautions against Damon and Lilith. Unfortunately, we had to introduce suspicion into that vast paradise. We should have preferred that entire innocence prevail, but one remembers that Our Father set, in the midst of Eden, a Forbidden Tree. Suspicion, entering into Pandara, will awaken the power of free will, and a healthy mistrust.

. . . I appeared to the wives of Pandara, the innocent treasures!–and informed them that they were with child, which pleased them mightily. However, I mourned . . . A beautiful female demon, one Lilith, who destroyed the souls of millions upon millions of other men, would soon enter the azure light of their planet to seduce their husbands and lead their husbands into unspeakable pleasures and lust, thus insuring that for a time, at least, those husbands would forget their wives and abandon their little nestlings. The husbands would romp with Lilith, neglectful of the duties of hearth, home and bed and field, and they would love her with madness and be so smitten of her charms that they would regard their wives with distaste and possibly revulsion. Worse still, the harvests would be neglected, the cattle unfed, the roofs unsealed . . .

A woman may forgive her husband a romp in the shadowy forests, but she will not forgive him the sufferings of her children, nor will she forgive the great insult to her own beauty and desirability. The ladies said to me, “Is this Lilith fairer than I?” And I replied, “Assuredly, she is the fairest of women, for all she is a demon, and are not maddening women demons? Though you are lovely to behold, my little ones, Lilith in contrast will cast a dust of ugliness upon you in your husbands’ eyes. But above all, she will shatter the peace and joy of your planet, and bring age upon your faces, and wrinkles, and dim the green fire of your eyes, and she will bring death upon your children and disease and storms and darkness and furies.”

“Ah,” I told them, “men are susceptible to ladies of no virtue and no matronly attributes! They are like adorable children, wanton at heart but in need of protection, and the careful supervision of alerted wives. They will stretch forth their hands for the flying hair of a woman of no sturdy consequence, and they will dance with her in the moonlight and garland her head with flowers and press their cheeks against her breast, and drink of wine deeply with her. She will laugh, and sing and play, and a wise matron understands how these things can lure men from their duties. She will becloud the minds of your husbands so that they will think of pleasure and not the granaries, laughter in the sun and not of weak roofs, roses in the glades and not of wool to be sheared. There is a certain weakness in men that inclines them to frivolity and dallying, and Lilith will exploit that weakness and entice your husbands from your sides. . . .

“We will be watchful, O, Lord Michael!” the wives promised me . . . is this not better than death and sin and age and disease and sorrow, not to mention the harsh tongues of betrayed wives? I have observed that men can endure great hardships and adversities with considerable calm, but they cannot endure for long the smite of a woman’s less affectionate remarks, and her acid conversation at midnight when they would prefer to sleep. . . .

I then repaired to the husbands of Pandara, and when they had risen from their knees at my consent, I said to them, “Glorious is your planet, beloved sons of God, my dear brothers, and fair are her skies and rich are her fields and splendid will be your cities. Handsome are your faces and strong are the rosy muscles of your arms, and your wives rejoice in you.”

“It is so, Lord!” they cried in jubilation, and I smiled at the happiness in their eyes and loved them dearly for the male spirit is a little less complicated than the female and somewhat more naive. It has an innocence, even in paradise, beyond the innocence of women who, even in paradise, are given to reflection, and are less trusting.

“But alas,” I said to the boys, “your joy is threatened, for you have free will, as you know, and alas again, so do your wives. . . . Men are often slave to habit, virtuous or unvirtuous, but women have few habits at all and so are easily led astray into novelties. Your wives, though with child, will not always be with child. They will have moments of leisure. While leisure for a man is a quiet resting or an innocent pastime or a running after balls or a climbing of trees for the fruit, or just sleeping, leisure for a woman is the veriest temptation. . . . Have you not already discovered this for yourselves?”

. . .

“Your wives will all have dreams very soon,” I told them, “and none of them will be virtuous. None of them will be concerned for the husband who labors in the fields and the forests and who tends cattle and returns dutifully home to his children and sits soberly on his hearth. On the contrary! They will be dreams which I hesitate to speak of, for women’s minds are somewhat less decorous and guileless than men’s, even on Pandara. The indelicacy of a woman’s thoughts would bring a flame to the cheek of even the burliest man. You have observed that nature is not always delicate?”

. . .

“And women are far closer to nature than are you, for all you labor in the fields and the forests. There is a certain earthiness in women which is sometimes an embarrassment to husbands, a certain lustiness of the flesh that is not always easily satisfied. If I am incorrect, I beg your forgiveness.”

“You are correct, Lord,” said the simple ones.

. . . “For unto your wives there will be sent from the very depths of hell an evil but most beautiful male demon, one Damon. I know him well! He has seduced endless millions of women on other planets, as fair and as matronly as your own, and as busy–with dreams. He is full of novelties and enticements, and adores women and finds them overwhelmingly fascinating–which you not always do. Their conversation never wearies him; he is attentive and glorious. As he never labors, except to do mischief, he is not weary at sundown, as you are weary. As he is a demon and not a man, he does not sleep, and women are notable for being active at night. And dreaming. He converses. You have no idea what a menace to husbands is a conversing man! But women find it distracting.

“You love your wives. Soon, they will bear children. However, when Damon comes to seduce them with fair words, with exciting discourse, with flatteries and ardencies, and will shine the beauty of his countenance upon them and jest with them until they are weak with laughter and adoration, they will forget you and your children, and will race with him to flowery dells and into dim lush spots–and will then betray you for his kisses and his lusts. Then will your children cry for a maternal breast, and then will there be no dishes upon the table to appease your hungers, and no arms to sustain you in your beds. You will be veritable orphans, abandoned and alone, left to weep among the wreckages of your households, and the uncleaned pots and the stale bread. Is that not a fate to weep about, and to pray never afflicts you?”

. . .

. . . Damon has a voice that is irresistible, and what woman can resist a musical voice if it is also masculine? Damon is all masculinity; he is never weary. His muscles never ache. His foot never lags. He never frowns, if dinner is a little late. He is also never hungry, as you are hungry, and you know how impatient wives are with the honest hunger of a man. They remark that men’s bellies seem bottomless. Correct me if I am wrong.”

“You are correct, Lord,” they said, with dismalness and alarm.

As Damon does not seek a woman with forthrightness, and with sleep in mind thereafter–as you do–he will dally with a woman after love, until she is ready and eager for his embraces again. Whereas you, my dear little ones, wish to turn on your pillows in preparation for the next day’s work. Damon never asks, “Do you love me?” as your wives ask, until you yawn for very boredom. He constantly assures the creature of his immediate affection that never has he loved a woman so before, and how rapturous are her kisses and perfumed her flesh. Do you say all this to your wives?”

“No, Lord,” they said dolorously.

. . .

. . .

“Be patient. For one comes who will have all the patience in the world and will never weary. Not only will he seduce your wives, so that all the horrors I have described will come upon you, but he will bring old age and death to you, and flagging of strength, and disease and pain. Worse, he will sharpen your women’s tongues, and nothing is more deadly.”

“How can we escape such a dreadful fate?” they cried.

. . . Men are trustful, when it involves women, and that is a momentous mystery which I will not even attempt to explore. I do not advise distrust as a general climate of the mind. That can inspire eventual cynicism and lovelessness. But a reasonable distrust is prudent. And one knows the weaknesses of women. Do we not?”

“Certainly!” they exclaimed, positive that they had always known female weaknesses, though the fact had only just occurred to them, alas.

“Then, be watchful for Damon. Never leave your wives long unguarded, especially in the soft eventides and when the moons are shining. Do not dally in the fields and the forests and the hills and the meadows as the sun begins to go down. Do not let anything draw you aside, even if it appears exciting and wondrous and new–and, probably beautiful, itself. For, if you delay, Damon will appear on your thresholds at home, and you may return to an empty household. A moment’s delight can cost you a whole life’s industry and hope and peace. And, again, it will bring you death and suffering.”

. . .

. . .

It is not sensible, as you know, Lucifer, to describe a handsome man to a woman or a lovely woman to a man, human nature being what it is, even on the Eden which is Pandara.

“We will guard our honor and the honor of our households and the safety of our children and the purity of our wives!” shouted the innocent ones, raising their fists high in a solemn oath. “Ever shall we be watchful of our women, understanding their weaknesses and their frail natures and their susceptibilities to temptation!”

I gave them my blessing and departed. They have been warned. Suspicion has been introduced into the turquoise daylight and the silver and lilac nights. . . . In Heaven we are unequally perfect, in accordance with the ability to be perfect inherent in our natures And that brings me to another subject you discussed in your last letter: Equality, which pervades hell.

In Heaven, there is Equity, which is an entirely different matter.

. . . The same situation prevails in hell–equality of treatment no matter the soul. However, in Heaven, as I have mentioned, there is Equity, based on the Natural Law that some men are superior to others, and some angels less than others, in virtue, in devotion, in piety, in dedication, love and courage and goodness. Equity does not abolish law; it intelligently deals with it, and its inflexibility.

Therefore, spirits in Heaven, angel or man, are rewarded in direct ratio to their accomplishments, which are governed by their will. Man, as we know, cannot earn merit during his lifetime on the grosser material of the planets, unless he has not fallen. But fallen men are incapable of earning merit, for their sin has thrown a wall of human impotence between them and their Creator. Only the Grace of Our Father can give merit to fallen men, and that merit is given by the men’s own acts, through their faith and their desire to receive Grace, through their repentance and their penance, through their acceptance of Grace, itself. You know this; it is a matter which has enraged you through time . . .

The saved among men, who desired to be saved and therefore had placed themselves in a position to receive Grace, differ enormously in the degree of their natures and their virtues, as well as in their wills and their sins. A murderer in hell, and a wanton thief, are treated equally with the pains and the uselessness of existence. But in Heaven a saint is worthier than a man of merely mild virtues, for the saint has labored long and hard in the stony fields of his life and has loved God more than himself, and the lives of his fellow sufferers more than his own. A man who has valiantly struggled with temptation during his lifetime and has contemplated all the worldly delights you have offered him, Lucifer, and has even desperately yearned for them, but who has gloriously resisted you in his soul and in his living, is worthier of more reward in Heaven than a man who has been merely mildly tempted by you or through some accident has not been much tempted at all, or lacked the terrible vitality to sin, or was afraid of the consequences on his own world. The first man is a hero; the second man is one who has had little opportunity to be either a hero or a sinner. Our Father takes note of the human weaknesses of His creatures. He will not permit you to tempt a man beyond his total ability to resist, but He does permit you to tempt His saints more fiercely and more insistently because they are men of greater valor and nobler mind. Our Father, as we have observed before, does not create men equal, but He has established Equity, based on the Natural Law which He ordained Himself. There is no injustice in Him Whom we both love so passionately, and you have never denied your love nor can you destroy it.

Were you the ruler of Heaven the saint and the weaker man would receive equal reward, but that is manifestly unfair. Archangels, who have vaster powers than angels, are more in possession of free will and therefore the temptation to use that will in defiance of God is infinitely higher in degree than in the lesser angels. Archangels are given enormous responsibilities and thrones and crowns throughout the endless universes, because of their nature, and it is they who see the Beatific Vision more frequently than the lesser spirits, and the spirits of men. “To each according to his merits,” is the Law of Heaven, whereas on Terra, and other darkened worlds, there appears to be some mangling of the moral law to the effect that “to each according to his material needs.” And that, we know, is infamy, injustice, cruelty, and a display of malice to the more worthy. Greed is the ugliest of the detestable sins, for it feeds on its own appetite and is never filled, and its rapacity is increased by its rapaciousness. It gives rise to the other sins, envy, theft, sloth, lies, adulteries and murder, and gluttony.

There is happiness in Heaven, as you know, but that happiness is in degree, except for the knowing that God loves completely to the extent of an angel’s or man’s worth. That happiness is compounded by labor, for none are idle in Heaven, and there is a task for all. That, too, is Equity.

While each task is approached with joy and with the hope–but never the absolute surety–that it will be completed, its completion, when accomplished, leads to higher tasks, worthy of a tempered spirit. There is always a progression in the Hierarchy of Heaven. No spirit remains as it was. And, always, there is a possibility, constantly reiterated, that as the spirit retains its free will, it can will to sin. This is something the theologians, in their little darkness on their worlds, have never understood or acknowledged–that there is always the hazard that a spirit may fall to you, even in the golden light of Heaven. For God does not remove free will from His creatures, no matter their degree. If He did so, He would abrogate their individuality, their very existence, both of which are eternally precious to Him, for they are of His own Nature and Essence.

. . . You have asked me if God pursues the lost soul in your hells. That I cannot and will not tell you. Is it possible for the lost to feel repentance? You have said not–but do you know all minds?

Sorry, But Media Coverage of Pope Francis is Papal Bull

Pope Francis leaves at the end of his general audience at St Peter’s square on Oct. 29, 2014 at the Vatican. Gabriel Bouys—AFP/Getty Images

The “Pope Francis supports evolution” story is just the latest example of the press getting the Catholic Church completely wrong

It is official: the media has gone bananas in its coverage of Pope Francis.

The OMG-Pope-Francis-Supports-Evolution story of the past two days is just the latest example. Almost every news outlet, major and minor, has plastered Pope Francis’ name across the interwebs and proclaimed he has finally planted the Catholic Church in the evolution camp of the creation-evolution debate. The only problem? Almost every outlet has got the story wrong, proving once again that the mainstream media has nearly no understanding of the Church. And that madness shows no signs of stopping.

Pope Francis’ real role in this evolution hubbub was small. He spoke, as Popes do, to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Monday, which had gathered to discuss “Evolving Topics of Nature,” and he affirmed what Catholic teaching has been for decades. “God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life,” he said. “Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.”

Anyone who knows anything about Catholic history knows that a statement like this is nothing new. Pope Pius XII wrote an encyclical “Humani Generis” in 1950 affirming that there was no conflict between evolution and Catholic faith. Pope John Paul II reaffirmed that, stressing that evolution was more than a hypothesis, in 1996. Pope Benedict XVI hosted a conference on the nuances of creation and evolution in 2006. There’s an official book on the event for anyone who wants to know more. Pope Francis’ comments Monday even came as he was unveiling a new statue of Pope Benedict XVI, honoring him for his leadership.

None of that seems to matter to the media; the internet exploded all the same. Site after site after site ramped up the Pope’s words and took them out of context. Headlines like these added drama: NPR: “Pope Says God Not ‘A Magician, With A Magic Wand.’” Salon: “Pope Francis schools creationists.” U.S. News and World Report: “Pope Francis Backs the Big Bang Theory, Evolution” (with a subhed: “Also, the pontiff says he’s not a communist”). Huffington Post. Sydney Morning Herald. Telegraph. USA Today. New York Post. The list goes on and on. Only Slate did its homework.

Wednesday morning the stories continued with new, analytical twists. The New Republic came out with a story titled, “The Pope Has More Faith Than the GOP in Science.” The Washington Post posted a piece, “Pope Francis may believe in evolution, but 42 percent of Americans do not.” It doesn’t seem to matter that Pope Benedict XVI called the debate between evolution an creation an “absurdity” in 2007. MSNBC opened its piece saying, “Pope Francis made a significant rhetorical break with Catholic tradition Monday by declaring that the theories of evolution and the Big Bang are real.” NBCNews called the Pope’s statement, “a theological break from his predecessor Benedict XVI, a strong exponent of creationism.”

This embarrassing narrative repeats itself over and over in Francis coverage. It happened last week when the Pope, again, voiced the Church’s long-standing opposition to the death penalty (having also done so in June, and after John Paul discussed the topic at length in an entire encyclical on being consistently pro-life in 1995). It happened at the Synod of the Bishops on the family, when the bishops talked about welcoming gays and the media whipped that up into an inaccurate story about an enormous policy shift toward gay marriage.

That’s dangerous, especially because this furor seems to occur most often when hot-button Western political issues can be tied to the Pope’s statements—evolution, death penalty, gay marriage. Wednesday morning, Pope Francis asked for prayers for 43 Mexican students who were burned alive by drug traffickers. It is unlikely that that will get the same pickup.

Moral of this story: Don’t believe most of what you read about the Vatican. Papal coverage has gone wild.

The Most Surprising Photos of Pope Francis

Michael Sohn—AP

Visitors take photos of Pope Francis as he speaks from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican.

The third occurrence of a Tetrad of Blood Moons significant to Jewish history, as reported by NASA, was in 1967-68. Why was this significant to Jewish history? 1967 was the year the city of Jerusalem was reunited with the Jewish people for first time in nearly nineteen hundred years.

. . .

BLOOD MOONS OF 1967-68

The Tetrad of Blood Moons of 1967-68 occurred on the Jewish holidays of Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles:

. . .

This third Tetrad, beginning in 1967, occurred on the Jewish holidays of Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles with the total solar eclipse occurring on November 2, 1967, before Passover of 1968.

What was happening to the Jewish people during this time?

THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE

See how your enemies growl,

how your foes rear their heads.

With cunning they conspire against your people;

they plot against those your cherish.

“Come,” they say, “let us destroy them as a nation,

so that Israel’s name is remembered no more.”

(PSALM 83:2—4 NIV)

Israel was at war from the moment they declared statehood.

The War of Independence of May 15, 1948, through March 10, 1949, occurred the day after Israel’s rebirth. . . . The war was fought along the entire length of the country’s border; against Lebanon and Syria in the north; Iraq and Transjordan in the east; Egypt, assisted by contingents from the Sudan, in the south; and Palestinians and volunteers from Arab countries in the interior of Israel.

It was the bloodiest of Israel’s wars with a total of 6,373 killed in action. The jubilant celebration of the nation’s rebirth was over. Sandwiched between the War of Independence and the Six-Day War was the Sinai War of October 29 through November 7, 1956, which was fought against Egypt over the control of the strategic Sinai Peninsula.

In 1967, the Arab nations, committed to driving the Jewish people into the sea, once again rallied against Israel. On May 15, as Israel commemorated their Independence Day, the buildup of Egyptian troops began moving into the Sinai near the Israeli border. By May 18, Syrian troops were prepared for battle along the Golan Heights.

THE HAND OF GOD

The Six-Day War was a war of miracles. . . . There was no military reason for their victory; . . .

. . .

THE CONQUEST OF SHECHEM

Israel’s military commanders recognized that the taking of Shechem would be one of the toughest and bloodiest battles of the war. The largest crossing of the Jordan River began in the country of Jordan and continued through the Samarian Mountains and into the city of Shechem. Abraham used this very crossing as he entered into the land of Canaan (Genesis 12:6).

The Jordanian army assumed that Israel would enter Shechem through their coastal region so they placed their heavy artillery and tanks on the other side of the city overlooking the roads leading to Shechem from the west. The IDF (Israel Defense Force) decided to outmaneuver the enemy by first fighting to the north and west and then coming back down to enter Shechem from the east, which was “the back door” of the city.

A DIRECT HIT

In the late hours of the night, an IDF truck loaded with arms and shells parked next to a building in Jerusalem. Its mission was to bring a fresh supply of ammunition to the front line outposts. The element of danger was great for if the truck was hit by enemy fire, the subsequent explosions of all the ammo would bring all the buildings in the area down on their inhabitants.

Suddenly the whistling of an approaching enemy shell was heard, and the shell, indeed, scored a direct hit on the vehicle. But the Arab shell did not explode. It remained perched atop the pile of Israeli shells in the truck.

EIGHTEEN AGAINST TWO

Yisrael, a cab driver who was drafted to fight in the Six-Day War as part of the paratroop unit assigned with conquering the Straits of Tiran, gave the following account upon his return:

The Israeli soldiers didn’t have to parachute out of

the Nord airplanes which took them to the Tiran

Straits. They landed like spoiled tourists in the air-

port, because the Egyptian regiment which was on

guard there fled before the Israeli troops were visible

on the horizon.

After landing, I was sent with another reserve

soldier, and electrician, to patrol the area. When we

had distanced ourselves two kilometers, an Egyptian

halftrack appeared before us filled with soldiers and

mounted with machine guns on every side. We had

only light weapons with a few bullets that couldn’t stop

the halftrack for a second. We couldn’t turn back, so

we stood there in despair, waited for the first shot, and

for lack of a better idea, aimed our guns at them.

But the shots didn’t come.

The halftrack came to a halt, and we decided to

cautiously approach it. We found eighteen armed sol-

diers inside sitting with guns in hand, with a petrified

look on their faces. They looked at us with great fear

as though begging for mercy. I shouted “Hands up!”

As we were marching them and I had returned to a

state of calm, I asked the Egyptian sergeant next to me,

Tell me, why didn’t you shoot at us?”

He answered, “I don’t know. My arms froze—they

became paralyzed. My whole body was paralyzed, and

I don’t know why.”

It turned out that these soldiers didn’t know that

the Straits of Tiran were already in Israeli hands; why

didn’t they eliminate us?

I don’t have an answer. How can one say that G-d

didn’t help us.

THE FINGER OF GOD

IDF Director of Operations Maj. Gen. Ezer Weizmann was asked by Mr. Levanon, the father of a fallen pilot, how he explains the fact that for three straight hours, Israeli Air Force planes flew from one Egyptian airstrip to another destroying the enemy planes, yet the Egyptians did not radio ahead to inform their own forces of the oncoming Israeli attack.

Ezer Weizmann, who later served as president of the State of Israel, was silent. He then lifted his head and exclaimed, “The finger of G-d.”

HA’ARETZ NEWSPAPER’S BOTTOM LINE

Following his blow-by-blow analysis, the military correspondent for the secular Ha’aretz newspaper summed up the Six-Day War with the admission: “Even a non-religious person must admit this war was fought with help from heaven.”

A JOURNALIST’S EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT

A German journalist summarized:

Nothing like this has happened in history. A force in-

cluding 1,000 tanks, hundreds of artillery cannons,

many rockets and fighter jets, and a hundred thousand

soldiers armed from head to toe was destroyed in two

days in an area covering hundreds of kilometers filled

with reinforced outposts and installations.

And this victory was carried out by a force that

lost many soldiers and much equipment, positions,

and vehicles. No military logic or natural cause can

explain this monumental occurrence.

. . .

King Hussein of Jordan proposed a cease-fire before the IDF could take back the Old City of Jerusalem. World leaders put increasing political pressure on Israel, demanding that they accept the proposed truce. Then suddenly, King Hussein changed his mind, refusing to submit to the very conditions of the cease-fire that he personally put in place! . . .

The Old City had been under Jordanian control since 1948. For nineteen years the Jewish people had been prohibited from the Western Wall where they had prayed for thousands of years before. It took just three days for Israeli forces to defeat the Jordanian army. On the morning of June 7, the order was given to take back the Old City of Jerusalem.

Israeli paratroopers stormed the city and secured it. Defense Minister Moshe Dayan arrived with Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin to formally mark the Jews’ return to their historic capital and their holiest site. At the Western Wall, the IDF’s chaplain, Rabbi Shlomo Goren, blew a shofar to celebrate the event.

In total, 21,000 of Israel’s enemies were killed during the Six-Day War; Israel lost 779 soldiers. Jerusalem became the capital of the Jewish people once again. David Ben-Gurion was right when he declared, “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.”

God’s signature was on the miraculous victory of the Six-Day War. He signaled this historic event with the third series of Four Blood Moons. The trials and tribulation of war finally brought forth triumph for the Jewish people—the unification of their beloved Jerusalem.